The Impartiality Of The BBC.

[Robin-H]

Rubbish. I’m not trying in this case to justify the licence fee.

 

Read my posts very carefully: I am just stating the facts that independent television is not free. And I haven’t even included the advertising revenue that Sky gets for example, and that on top of subscription fees.

 

Now imagine that BBC did allow advertising as a replacement revenue source. Two things could happen:

1. It is successful and matches or even eclipses ITV advertising revenue. That’s £106 a household, practically the same as the licence fee.

2. It turns out the pot of advertising money is too small. ITV suffers a reduction in its revenue and the BBC doesn’t make enough either. You nobble both successful national broadcasting institutions in one go.

 

Again....none of it is free. And tinkering with a successful model without understanding the consequences is usually a bad idea. But we’re getting good at that in the U.K. aren’t we.

 

I'm not sure about your logic for this? You've supposedly taken the amount of money that ITV makes from advertising revenue a year and divided it by the number of households in the UK?

 

Firstly, I'd question your figures. ITV doesn't make £3b from advertising. The total ITV revenue was about £3b last year - only half of that came from advertising and sponsorship.

 

Secondly, it is advertisers that pay ITV, not households. It is true that advertisers pay because it is beneficial for them to do so (they make more money out of households by advertising) but you cannot really equate it with the licence fee. You don't have to buy anything.

[I1L2T3]

I'm not sure about your logic for this? You've supposedly taken the amount of money that ITV makes from advertising revenue a year and divided it by the number of households in the UK?

 

Firstly, I'd question your figures. ITV doesn't make £3b from advertising. The total ITV revenue was about £3b last year - only half of that came from advertising and sponsorship.

 

Secondly, it is advertisers that pay ITV, not households. It is true that advertisers pay because it is beneficial for them to do so (they make more money out of households by advertising) but you cannot really equate it with the licence fee. You don't have to buy anything.

 

Points still stand.

 

Advertisers are selling products (majority of the time) and when we buy the products the costs of advertising are passed to us the consumers.

 

Because of the wild variability in consumer behaviour averaging the cost per household is reasonable.

 

And again I am in no way equating it with the licence fee. I am making the point that ITV is not free. It simply isn’t whichever way you look at it.

[Robin-H]

Points still stand.

 

Advertisers are selling products (majority of the time) and when we buy the products the costs of advertising are passed to us the consumers.

 

Because of the wild variability in consumer behaviour averaging the cost per household is reasonable.

 

And again I am in no way equating it with the licence fee. I am making the point that ITV is not free. It simply isn’t whichever way you look at it.

 

I think it is a rather warped way of viewing it.

 

Consumers will sometimes see something advertised on ITV and think 'that looks good, I want one of those' and go out and buy it.

 

The consumer is still getting a product out of it, and something that they have decided that they want to buy, and at the price that it is advertised.

 

Studies suggest that advertising can actually lower the cost to the consumer, as companies can benefit from economies of scale and cut manufacturing costs.

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1250354?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

https://www.adassoc.org.uk/advertisings-big-questions/does-advertising-increase-consumer-prices/

[Car Boot]

So basically, the BBC provides what people want, such that they don't have to actually go out and buy local papers, or put up with the low standards of local reporting and the proliferation of adverts (see The Star).... and this is somehow.. a bad thing.

 

Why do you believe, like the pampered and out of touch metropolitan elite who run the BBC, that a plurality of news sources is bad for society and so should be avoided?

 

A monopoly on the supply of information cannot possibly hope to represent the variety of opinion that exists, and so is extremely harmful to local democracy.

 

Perhaps that is the real reason you and the BBC favour reducing the non-BBC media by putting alternative sources of information out of business?

[Magilla]

Why do you believe, like the pampered and out of touch metropolitan elite who run the BBC, that a plurality of news sources is bad for society and so should be avoided?

 

You mean like the the pampered and out of touch metropolitan elite that is David Dimbleby?

 

Utterly ridiculous. If people wanted these "alternative" sources of news, then they would pay for them regardless of the BBC.

 

That they generally don't shows the BBC is doing it's job.

 

A monopoly on the supply of information cannot possibly hope to represent the variety of opinion that exists, and so is extremely harmful to local democracy.

 

There isn't a "monopoly on the supply of information". To suggest that there is in this day and age is simply ludicrous.

 

People choose the BBC over alternate sources because they trust it more than them, and for good reason.

 

What you really mean is "how will anyone fall for my fantasy guff if the BBC isn't laughably biased like I am"... haahaa busted!

 

Perhaps that is the real reason you and the BBC favour reducing the non-BBC media by putting alternative sources of information out of business?

 

Perhaps you haven't got a clue what you're talking about

 

I await your next heavily snipped response to avoid those inconvenient "facts" you're so rubbish at trying to hide

Edited December 4, 2017 by Magilla

[melthebell]

Why do you believe, like the pampered and out of touch metropolitan elite who run the BBC, that a plurality of news sources is bad for society and so should be avoided?

 

A monopoly on the supply of information cannot possibly hope to represent the variety of opinion that exists, and so is extremely harmful to local democracy.

 

Perhaps that is the real reason you and the BBC favour reducing the non-BBC media by putting alternative sources of information out of business?

once upon a time............there was only 2 tv channels, and barely any radio bar the BBC.

 

cue the 21st century and theres now more sources than there ever was

[L00b]

once upon a time............there was only 2 tv channels, and barely any radio bar the BBC.

 

cue the 21st century and theres now more sources than there ever was

And therein lies the fundamental problem with information credibility and reporting in the 21st century. And it's not a trivial one.

 

Once upon a time, there was editorial oversight of the news, upholding such journalistic standards as fact-checking information to report, independently of the financing model of the news organisation.

 

There is still a lot of it thankfully, as attested by the reasonable amount of esteem in which e.g. ITN News and BBC News are still held by their journalist peers.

 

But there has never been any such editorial checks and balances on user-controlled broadcast media, particularly social media outlets like Facebook, Twitter and such.

 

And if people think this is not a real problem, then allow me to put this in its proper context: untold numbers of people have had their lives ruined (with some actually killed) by such public-trials-by-social-media. Many a time, for no better reason than some Facebook poster or other with the IQ of blancmange, e.g. mistaking "paediatrician" for "paedophile".

 

The pen is still mightier than the sword, always. That's exactly why letting imbeciles wield that pen without any form of checks and balances is insanely dangerous.

Edited December 4, 2017 by L00b

[chalga]

Why do you believe, like the pampered and out of touch metropolitan elite who run the BBC, that a plurality of news sources is bad for society and so should be avoided?

 

A monopoly on the supply of information cannot possibly hope to represent the variety of opinion that exists, and so is extremely harmful to local democracy.

 

Perhaps that is the real reason you and the BBC favour reducing the non-BBC media by putting alternative sources of information out of business?

 

There's plenty of conspiracy theory sites where you can get around the BBC monopolising the information supply,apparently,it's all on t'internet,did you know that the BBC have been trying to shut it down?.............the gall of them,i'm out into the streets to protest about them,and the EU.

[Car Boot]

Utterly ridiculous. If people wanted these "alternative" sources of news, then they would pay for them regardless of the BBC.

 

So you believe that people SHOULD have the choice of purchasing alternative sources of news, such as a local newspaper. If that is their preference.

 

But you DON'T think that people should be given a choice when it comes to paying the BBC TV licence fee?

 

If people want to watch Sky News, and not the BBC, why must they pay the BBC for the privilege? If the BBC was paid for by subscription (such as Netflix which has a monthly fee) people could happily make the decision as to whether or not it is worth their money.

 

So if you, and the pampered metropolitan elite, are so confident the BBC is value for money then why not give people the option to subscribe or not? Why should people who want to watch ITV, but never watch the BBC, have to pay for it?

 

I think we all know the real answer why the BBC won't give people any choice in paying for its dumbed down content.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Car Boot

[Magilla]

So you believe that people....

 

I believe that people... can clearly see you've lost it, and undermined your claims in the Brexit thread at the same time!

 

Well done you!